You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
UK Staw Snubs US Hawks: Will Tell Sec. Rice - UK No Help
2005-01-23
UK suffering from "soft power" addiction. Fools
JACK STRAW has drawn up a dossier putting the case against a military attack on Iran amid fears that President George W Bush's administration may seek Britain's backing for a new conflict. Straw and his officials fear that hawks in Washington will talk the American president into a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, just as they persuaded him to go to war in Iraq. The foreign secretary has produced a 200-page dossier that rules out military action and makes the case for a "negotiated solution" to curbing the ayatollahs' nuclear ambitions amid increasingly bellicose noises from Washington. He will press home the point at a meeting with Condoleezza Rice, the incoming secretary of state, at a meeting in Washington tomorrow. The document says a peaceful solution led by Britain, France and Germany is "in the best interests of Iran and the international community". It refers to "safeguarding Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology".
Posted by:Captain America

#135  Why pay attention to Aris? He is a proven liar and bigot, per his posts here earlier.
Posted by: OldSpook   2005-01-23 11:41:10 AM  

#134  Why pay attention to Aris? He is a proven liar and bigot, per his posts here earlier.
Posted by: OldSpook   2005-01-23 11:41:10 AM  

#133  
Re #129 (badanov): I believe Aris is not on the US's side with regard to the war on terrorism. ... I will consider you against the US efforts to fight the war on terror.

Do you think, badanov, that Aris is merely objectively on the side of the terrorists or that he also is subjectively on the side of the terrorists?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-01-23 10:16:42 PM  

#132  Aris is a fifth columnist.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 9:52:02 PM  

#131  Tom, this is the 6th "ignore" post you've made.

And given how you and Frank have repeatedly *admitted* you were playing games with me and having me for your "chewtoy", it's ironic that you accuse *me* of playing games.

My positions have never warped. On that respect you simply lie. Or perhaps you simply fail to comprehend a person who's political positions don't fit your preconceptions about the only possible positions to hold on any issue.

badanov> I have supposedly now "besmirched" people with my hateful writings? Do you actually know the meaning of that word?

"We don't know at this point how the war will turn out, but I know that if we evaluate it as a failure, or even as a partial failure when the war is clearly not over, that would be a defeat"

No, accepting facts is the only way we have of changing the course of this. It's when you remain in denial that you keep on making the same mistakes over and over again. Such history tells us.

"I will consider you against the US efforts to fight the war on terror."

You may consider the moon made from cheese for all I care.

I'm sure that attitude makes for an easy conscience, if you think that everyone who criticizes you must be evil.

The Hitlers and Kims of the world have a usage for people like you.

Goodnight, again.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 9:48:52 PM  

#130  OldSpook is right (#22) -- Aris is a liar and a bigot. This is all a game to him -- his positions warp to fit his "game" and he plays with words and ideas and people solely to provoke and gain masochistic attention. You will learn nothing from the perspective of this sheltered Greek geek. He is little more than Murat with a better vocabulary. Shun him.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 9:36:25 PM  

#129  We don't know at this point how the war will turn out, but I know that if we evaluate it as a failure, or even as a partial failure when the war is clearly not over, that would be a defeat.

Aris gleefully is starting to use the term pyhrric victory as just another rhetorical stab at America and all our military forces are doing to rid the world of terrorism.

I believe Aris is not on the US's side with regard to the war on terrorism.

Aris, take it how you want, Complain to Fred, make accusations all you want, but until I hear an abject apology from you to everyone in Rantburg and everyone in the US military you have besmirched with your hateful writings, I will consider you against the US efforts to fight the war on terror.

Have a nice life, Aris.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 9:33:03 PM  

#128  Goodnight, y'all.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 9:25:37 PM  

#127  Not all or nothing, but as much as I can get.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 9:23:32 PM  

#126  If you don't want me to protest about the things I didn't say, don't ever lyingly claim about me saying them. I'm much more honest than you.

Either way I gave you that no-or-yes answer you desired. Now please answer me the question I asked you:

Do the terms "partial success" and "partial failure" exist for you or is it always an all-or-nothing?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 9:22:32 PM  

#125  More foolish dichotomies you demand me to accept.

Maybe it is a foolish dichotomy, but I feel that in the absence of any personal honesty on your part, I have to nail you down to a position; otherwise you will be protesting about what you didn't say.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 9:18:30 PM  

#124  Tom's 5th ignore. In this thread alone.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 9:17:07 PM  

#123  Ignore dear Aris, the former Enlightening Beacon. Remove his portraits from your public places. You will be better off getting your field guidance from dear leader Kim Jong Il. Minor power stations and modern chicken and catfish farms are preferable to uninspired Greek geek rantings. You want this kind of stuff? Go to:
http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=Main&D=2005-01-23&ID=54408
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 9:15:37 PM  

#122  So you have deemed Iraq a military failure?

No.

But it tied up so many troops that occupying Syria or engaging Iran became impossible.

Remember, this is a yes or no question

More foolish dichotomies you demand me to accept. I do not accept them. In the real world, the words "partial success" or "partial failure" also exist.

Everything's either a complete success or a complete failure according to you? No inbetweens at all?

Do you know the term "Pyrrhic victory" at all?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 9:13:16 PM  

#121  That's what I'm talking about when I mention that delusions of military omnipotency was another factor of what made people think that Iraq was a good option.

So you have deemed Iraq a military failure?

Remember, this is a yes or no question.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 9:06:20 PM  

#120  That's your fourth "ignore" in this thread alone, Tom. How many tries do you need before you get it right?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 9:04:52 PM  

#119  So incredibly stupid that I'm just going to "ignore" it. I used to think Aris was bright but arrogant. Now I think he's just arrogant.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 8:59:36 PM  

#118  If you want "several other dictators", then Tehran and Sudan are in the list, whose defeat of either would provide greater benefits than the defeat of Saddam Hussein. As I've often spoken.

But I was responding mainly to Brett's comments on a sequence. You can always calculate your first move with precision. The second move always depends on what the opponent plays.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 8:53:05 PM  

#117  That's what I'm talking about when I mention that delusions of military omnipotency was another factor of what made people think that Iraq was a good option.

You are always talking about a "sequence" of targets to be hit, as if victory is always certain, as if results are predetermined.

Iraq was the battlefield that gave you the least benefits in the case of victory, and the greatest losses in the case of defeat.

You should have chosen the battlefield that gave you the opposite: greatest benefits in the case of victory, and smallest losses in the case of defeat.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 8:50:03 PM  

#116  That's it!?! The "several other dictators" was Syria/Lebanon!?! And you think that was a better "play" than Saddam!?! What a load.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 8:47:27 PM  

#115  Bullshit, Aris. You boasted: "...from a practical perspective it *wasn't* the right war for the right reasons at *all*. There were several other dictators in the region, whose overthrow would have been more beneficial to the region, and much more harmful to global terrorism." Tell us who they were, Aris.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 8:44:30 PM  

#114  Tom, I've given it quite often. So I think I'll just "ignore" your request.

But for Brett's sake, my list has been for a long time 1. Syria/Lebanon

The next step would always be determined by how the situation would develop from then, and how the regimes of the region would behave, and how much forces you'd have available and other factors such as Turkey's attitude -- crushing Saddam, or bypassing Iraq entirely, or turning Kurdistan independent but letting Saddam keep the rest of Iraq: those would all be options.

The good thing about the Syria/Lebanon option is that it gives you immediate benefits *without* needing it to be just a stepping stone. Even if, gods forbid, you were hopelessly entagled there and unable to move further, the loss of the Damascus regime would still be a great blow to the Islamic terrorism axis.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 8:41:16 PM  

#113  Still waiting for that list, three hours later. You are crap as a Monday morning quarterback, Aris.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 8:38:39 PM  

#112  a) Annoyance at the worship of *mindless* machismo.

There is no 'mindless machismo' in a combat zone. And the folks in combat on the ground are often highly educated and highly intellgent people, more than likely far more so than your recently graduated self. Machismo and intelligence are not incompatible.

b) Annoyance at the anti-feminist effort to combine "manliness" and "bravery", as if they're connected.

They can be conncted. And feminism is incompatible with masculinity. Admit it, this is another canard you are trying to create.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 8:22:43 PM  

#111  I'm still waiting for your list of preferred dictators for overthrow in the region, Aris. In order, please. (#62 & #64)
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 8:21:33 PM  

#110  heh heh - he said "anti-feminist". what a girl.
Posted by: Beavis   2005-01-23 8:12:31 PM  

#109  So, I believe your 'problem' is that you are trying to establish a canard that people with 'balls' or 'guts' cannot be highly intelligent.

No, I'm not. I'm simply displaying two things:
a) Annoyance at the worship of *mindless* machismo.
b) Annoyance at the anti-feminist effort to combine "manliness" and "bravery", as if they're connected.

Waiting for your next insulting attempt to misinterpret my words.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 8:06:57 PM  

#108  "Peace in our time."
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2005-01-23 8:00:08 PM  

#107  As for me, I have a problem with those clowns who can't think that guts (or "balls") is all you need, and haven't yet figured the use of other organs such as the brain.

So, how about identifying them for us rather than throw out a generality about 'balls.'

Oftentimes in a world in which leftists want to emplace policies which get more Americans killed, it takes 'balls' and 'guts' to oppose such insanity in the name of preserving life.

You have a problem with masculinity: I think that having 'balls' or guts' in a military setting saves lives.

I thank God we have people in our American leadership, political amd military, who have the 'balls' and the 'guts' to do the right thing in spite of all that could befall them in a dangerous world.

You want to seperate 'balls' and 'guts' from having intelligence and I can tell you the two are not incompatible. So, I believe your 'problem' is that you are trying to establish a canard that people with 'balls' or 'guts' cannot be highly intelligent. You are so wrong.

I believe that you have such an aversion to the truth you cannot honestly and forthrightly state your position on a simple matter. That may be intelligence to you but to me its just a lack of 'balls' or 'guts' on your part to be honest on these and other exchanges.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 7:58:39 PM  

#106  "Oh, by the way, Aris, the reference to testosterone is an American cultural thing."

No, worries, I can figure it quite well, given how the most Neanderthalian Greeks display similar worship of machismo.

Our cultures aren't that different, with Greece being a red-state in a mostly blue Europe and all.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 7:53:19 PM  

#105  "I have a problem with folks who tell me they are for something but they are against something."

Do I think you have the right to gamble all your money in Las Vegas? Yes, you have it. Do I think you *should* gamble it all? No, you shouldn't.

So does that mean I'm for or against gambling, badanov? You have the moral right to do it, but it's bloody stupid and a bad idea -- kinda like the war on Iraq.

As for me, I have a problem with those clowns who can't think that guts (or "balls") is all you need, and haven't yet figured the use of other organs such as the brain.

All I want is for him to state a single position and to stick to it.

Objecting to the Iraq War because of practical concerns but not having moral objections to it has been my consistent position since before I ever came to Rantburg, badanov. It's been my consistent position since before the Iraq War started, badanov.

On matters of consistency, don't try to mess with me. Since I am NOT a liar, and since I *am* an honest debater, I have a much better capacity to remember what I've spoken and what I've believed and what I've argued.

So all your rest of your post, I think I'll ignore. Be more civil next time, and care more about my actual words than about your random insults, if you want better results.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 7:42:36 PM  

#104  Brett: A technical clarification.

A US Corps can have as few as two divisions and as many as four. They are at the threatre level task organized to what the theatre commander wants and to what the appointed corps commander can do.

As for the composition: again, corps are task organized according to what the unit is expected to accomplish. In GWI the US XVIII and US VII corps went in with two artillery brigades each (about 100 tubes/launchers per brigade), to my knowledge the heaviest concentration of artillery assigned to a corp in US history.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 7:18:16 PM  

#103  Oh, by the way, Aris, the reference to testosterone is an American cultural thing. Manliness is still held in esteem in this country and the cowboy is the ultimate expression of that. Manliness is a concept that has been bred out of most Continentals, which could be one reason that your birthrates on a path to self extinction. American women still have enough faith in their men and their future to have children.
Posted by: RWV   2005-01-23 7:16:40 PM  

#102  Gotta love any thread AK joins, 'cause it will be loong and full of good info and snarky commentary. Anyway, enough about my happiness.

Come on AK, give us a list! It seems your list includes: Syria, Iran and Soddyland. Now, rate 'em, just like "American Bandstand". Which should the USA dance with first, second, etc. Personally, I think we should have them ALL on our list.

Let me give you my personal list.
1. Iraq
Now, if I need to go anywhere else in the area and take care of any bad boyz, we bring in a Corps or so and have at it. (AK, please look at a map and see who the neighbors of Iraq are). Makes it very easy. Bonus points for destroying an Arab strongman.

By the way, AK, a Corps includes 2 Divisions +. Like say, 3ID (conquerors of Bagdad) with 1CAV, (liberators of Pyongyang), the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment along with an Artillery Brigade and a few Aviation Brigades. More proven combat power than the entire EU right there, buddy.

So, where could we go now?

Syria? Damascus in 10 days, unless we farm it out to our competent friends in the IDF. Unfortunately, if the IDF did, they'd lead the USA in the number of Arab capitals taken 2-to-1. I guess that means we'd have to knock off Soddyland or poor Lebanon to tie it back up.

Soddyland? Riyadh is a long drive, so our main risk is from break-downs as opposed to the SANG. We'd also need to occupy the Gulf coast area too to protect the ARAMCO installations.

Iran? Tough nut to crack, invasion-wise. Of course, we would be able to open 2 fronts and dominate the airspace to start. We need to think this one over because the the PEOPLE of Iran love us and we don't want to give them a reason to change that.

So, here's looking at you, AK!
Posted by: Brett   2005-01-23 7:09:09 PM  

#101  Someone should remind the EU that the mullahs were partiallhy responsible for the election of Ronald Reagan. Had the Iranians not humiliated Jimmy Carter through the embassy hostage crisis, the American people might not have rejected quite so emphatically in favor of Ronald Reagan and the world would be a much, much different place. (Of course OPEC and 21% interest rates didn't help Mr. Peanut either)
Posted by: RWV   2005-01-23 7:07:23 PM  

#100  
What's the deal with personal attacks on Aris?

That's pretty much the only way some Rantburgers know how to discuss an issue.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-01-23 7:06:52 PM  

#99  Aris threw out the chum and the suckers went for it as usual.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-01-23 7:00:58 PM  

#98  Can anyone give me some links to any analyses, by reputable military strategists, that discuss how we might have undertaken an assault on either Syria or Iran without first getting set up in Iraq? I've gone through the last 4 years of Parameters, but no dice. Thanks in advance...
Posted by: Dave D.   2005-01-23 7:00:49 PM  

#97  I think you'll find that Israel didn't fax Saddam Hussein advance notice of their intention to take out his nuclear toys either, 2xstandard. They were actually quite sneaky about preparing for it. My prediction: when and if the strikes come, they will be primarily or entirely aerial, and Iran will probably be warned that any military response on its part will not be met with gloved fists. Whether Israel or the US, or both, do the de-fanging, it won't be a National Guard operation.
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-01-23 6:49:18 PM  

#96  2xstandard:

At this point in time we have no idea what will happen with Iran if we invade, but we do know what could happen if Iran does manage to make a nuke and place it on missiles we know it has.

Your source has really stepped in it, I think. There is no indication that a ground war is in the offing, but there is every indication of what could happen when the Mullahs get a nuke. Then all the Major's arguments fall apart because it will be at that point our troops are in true moral danger and war becomes ineviable, mobilized national guard or not.

It will be then time to take military action even if it is an air war.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 6:48:13 PM  

#95  "lex> If Aris had any he would know. Refer back to #7."
" A friend of mine would say that it's a telling comment on Conservatives' gender politics, when they feel the need to attribute balls to women they admire, and deny them from all men that they dislike."

I dont dislike you either Aris. I just dont agree with almost everything you post in Rant. You make yourself an easy target. Cant you see that ? You really piss me off when I read the crap you post concerning red state - blue state comparisons. Red, blue, ( American Style ) you obviously have a warped and confused concept of both.
There are only a few men I truly do not like and some of them have balls. There are men I DO like and some have no balls. Man, woman, dog, Jackass, some have balls and some do not. Conservative, Liberal, Canadian, American - None of this applies.
Posted by: tex   2005-01-23 6:46:26 PM  

#94  2xstandard, you are apparently not reading Aris closely enough. All I want is for him to state a single position and to stick to it. He has so far not only failed to do this he wants to convince me he can answer a simple yes or no question with something else or by changing the subject.

That isn't insightful. That is dishonest.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 6:40:25 PM  

#93  apparently you haven't been here long 2X or you missed a lot
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 6:37:11 PM  

#92  I was against the Iraq War because of practical concerns, but at the same time I had no moral objections to it.

So address why you think it is a failure. I have a problem with folks who tell me they are for something but they are against something. It tells me they are either dishonest or they haven't decided.

Which is it with you? You can't be both for and against the war. It really is one or the other or else you are just a dishonest broker of a disjointed, dishonest personal opinion.

It's the same reason that I don't believe Taiwan should invade China -- would they have the moral right? Sure.

They no more have the moral right to invade Taiwan than you do to take two positions on the same debate and then try to convince others you really have on position.

It's not washing, Aris. You need to decide.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 6:37:09 PM  

#91  What's the deal with personal attacks on Aris? I think he makes good points as a support to his argument. You may disagree with his views, but I don't think aris can be accused of being illogical. In fact, from what I've read on this thread at least, aris is far more objective than other posters who have resorted to making nasty emotional personal attacks on him. Like lex says, " Too often, even the best blogs-- dare I say Rantburg too-- become echo chambers."

I read that a military expert from the Heritage Foundation, James Carafano, basically confirms some of the things that aris has alluded to - that US military action against Iran at a stage where there are no verifiable imminent threats from Iranian nuclear strikes could cause many deaths of American and coalition troops in Iraq as blowback.
A ground war with Iran would be unsustainable, Carafano said in an interview.

"We couldn't do another large scale ground operation without a major mobilization that would require mobilizing basically all of the national guard," he said.

"Even if we wanted to do that, it would be pretty obvious because it would take us months if not years to get the national guard up and ready to go."

Even a limited US attack on Iran, which shares a 1,450-kilometer (900-mile) open border with Iraq, would invite Tehran to use its influence among Iraq's Shiites to sabotage the separate peace US forces have enjoyed in southern Iraq. The same is true in Afghanistan, which has a 900-kilometer (560-mile) border with Iran.

"When you're trying to stabilize Iraq and you've got this long border between Iran and Iraq, and you're trying to keep the Iranians from interfering in Iraq so you can get the Iraq government up and running, you shouldn't be picking a war with the Iranians," said Carafano.

"It just doesn't make any sense from a geopolitical standpoint," he said.

Moreover, he said, it's unknown to outsiders how close Iran is to gaining a nuclear weapon, or what the US military has learned about its efforts, further obscuring the course of action the United States may take.
Posted by: 2xstandard   2005-01-23 6:34:15 PM  

#90  Because I'm opinionated, stubborn, and arrogant.

hey! at least you have 'unintentionally honest' to go for y'all too
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 6:33:41 PM  

#89  Let me see if I can get this straight. You think the war in Iraq is a failure, but you think it is a just war. That alone is a lie, Aris. You simply cannot be for a war, but be against it. It is one or the other.

You know what? You're insane.

I was against the Iraq War because of practical concerns, but at the same time I had no moral objections to it.

It's the same reason that I don't believe Taiwan should invade China -- would they have the moral right? Sure. Would they be bloody stupid to do it? Yeah.

If such logic is too complicated for you, we're done talking. If you think me necessarily a liar because I can object to a war for practical reasons even when I have no moral objections, then we don't inhabit the same universe.

Aris, have you ever asked yourself why, time and time again, you keep getting into fights with people?

It's a question with an easy answer: Because I'm opinionated, stubborn, and arrogant.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 6:27:58 PM  

#88  You'll notice, lex, that I never got my list from the Enlightening Beacon for #64.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 6:16:13 PM  

#87  From the point of view of the *Iraqis* it may have been a success (in the sense it overthrew Saddam) -- but that did little harm and may have even done much good to the Iranian and Syrian regimes

Nonsense. The Iranians fear two things above all: foreign invasion and a domestic uprising. There was no risk of the latter after 1991, so the second Iraq War was immaterial to that issue. As to a domestic uprising, Iraq's democratic evolution is without question stoking pressure within Iran for reform. Sistani is not Iran's puppet. It is nothing but bad news for the mullahs to have a neighboring example of elected shi'a leaders living peacefully with Kurds and refusing to attack sunni fascists in their midst.

As to Syria, do you really believe that Boy Assad would not have preferred that his fellow ba'athists remain in power? Your analysis depends completely on a ba'athist victory over Iraqi democrats. I'll bet on the latter, thanks.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 6:13:06 PM  

#86  Fascinating. Aris, have you ever asked yourself why, time and time again, you keep getting into fights with people?
Posted by: J.T. Sorenson   2005-01-23 6:12:04 PM  

#85  Now all we need is for lex to see the Enlightening Beacon for what he is and our work here is done.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 6:11:16 PM  

#84  But as a point of fact I *do* believe that the Iraqi War was a failure in the sense of it utterly failing to do anything good for the wider region, and the wider "war on Terror".

Let me see if I can get this straight. You think the war in Iraq is a failure, but you think it is a just war.

That alone is a lie, Aris. You simply cannot be for a war, but be against it. It is one or the other. You may think that just because a language allows you to state that position that it is an honest exposition of your views, but I think it just makes you a snake oil salesman little better than Saddam or the Mullahs, or Barbara Boxer, et al.

You stated at the top of this thread that you think the war is a failure. You said so; you tried to refute it when I pointed it out and now you are back again, telling us the war in Iraq is a failure.

You have got to be the most dishonest poster in Rantburg. It is no wonder many, many others cannot stand you because your only consistentcy has been yoour trying to take two sides in an argument you are losing.

What Old Spook said really resonates with me now. You really are a liar and a bigot.

Grow up Aris. Learn to be honest first before trying to perform your intellectual gynastics before the rest of us.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 6:08:08 PM  

#83  "What you made explicit was 'WMD is not a rhetoric that anyone will care to repeat' and 'Sure it [the Iran crisis] is [about nuclear weapons]'."

You see these statements as contradictory? Interesting.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 6:02:32 PM  

#82  "Then explain that statement you made in this thread. Did you not intend to statethat the war in Iraq is a failure?"

No, as I've explained since, the whole "cards" analogy refers to the propaganda/rhetoric game. This is a reference on the WMDs rhetoric in specific.

But as a point of fact I *do* believe that the Iraqi War was a failure in the sense of it utterly failing to do anything good for the wider region, and the wider "war on Terror".

From the point of view of the *Iraqis* it may have been a success (in the sense it overthrew Saddam) -- but that did little harm and may have even done much good to the Iranian and Syrian regimes, and the true "axis of evil" they represent.

I hope you've heard the term Pyrrhic victory.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 6:00:23 PM  

#81  What you made explicit was 'WMD is not a rhetoric that anyone will care to repeat' and 'Sure it [the Iran crisis] is [about nuclear weapons]'. So, with that and your admission/denial that the war in Iraq has been a success, you're really piling up irrational and contradictory statements in this thread. You don't have to wonder why most of us here don't take your opinions very seriously.

Can't... ignore... Aris meltdown... too good to miss...
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-01-23 6:00:02 PM  

#80  FWIW, I don't find Aris as obnoxious as some do because it's a good thing IMO to have one's opinions tested now and then by a gadfly. Regardless of whether he's arguing in good faith or not. Too often, even the best blogs-- dare I say Rantburg too-- become echo chambers. The Iran conundrum merits a fresh approach. Not all bad therefore to cast a cold eye on the mistakes made WRT to the selling/diplomacy of the Iraq War.

I'd like to know more about Musharraf's people's clandestine efforts in the east. Is regime change within 18 months totally out of the question? Will the mullahs truly have all they need to go nuclear by then? Just asking.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 5:53:53 PM  

#79  ignore
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:53:32 PM  

#78  ignore y'all
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 5:53:30 PM  

#77  Do you think the Iran crisis isn't about nuclear weapons?

Sure it is.

you think Israel can afford to tolerate a nuclear armed Iran?

That's for Israel to decide. I'm sure it'll weigh the pluses and minuses of an attack on Iran, better than USA managed to weigh the same about Iraq.

Since I've made it explicitely clear (e.g. #20, #48) that I believe in the possibility of an *Israeli* attack, your post remains babble.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 5:52:37 PM  

#76  lex, whether the Israelis or the US take the mullahs' toys out the fact is - teh Euro-3 are spineless pussies and whores to the mullahs, and no allies of the US in the global war forpeace
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 5:51:45 PM  

#75  Lest there be any confusion, "ignore" always means "ignore the Enlightening Beacon of our dear Aris".
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:51:16 PM  

#74  With the Iraqi hand a total failure,

Then explain that statement you made in this thread. Did you not intend to statethat the war in Iraq is a failure?
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 5:50:58 PM  

#73  I'd bet on strikes by Israel. Osirak, Part II. Yeah, yeah, the facilities aren't as concentrated as Saddam's were, blah blah. The crucial fact here is that mullahs with nukes pose an existential threat to Israel, and Israel has and will respond pre-emptively to destroy such threats, to the great relief of the Euros and the rest of us-- despite what you read in your newspaper. It's obvious that the Euros lack both the will and the ability and that we lack the political cover. But the Israelis have all three.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 5:48:15 PM  

#72  ignore
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:48:11 PM  

#71  What you believe is crap, Aris. You believe that 'WMD is not a rhetoric that anyone will care to repeat'. Babble, if ever I read it. Do you think the Iran crisis isn't about nuclear weapons? Do you think Israel can afford to tolerate a nuclear armed Iran? They weren't too tolerant of Osirak, were they? What you believe is your own fantasies, product of your own blinkered prejudices, and are quite ignorant of reality.
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-01-23 5:48:00 PM  

#70  Tom, you repeated that at #60.

So your statement earlier in this thread that the war in Iraq was a failure was in fact a lie then.

I said that the Iraqi-WMD hand was a failure. I've since made it clear that I'm talking about the propaganda game and how the WMD's rhetoric is perceived in the eyes of the public.

I'm tired of you inventing things I supposedly said, in order to catch me at a fictional lie.

When you are willing to read more carefully, I'll be here.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 5:47:29 PM  

#69  Tom, darling, you just can't send me to the camps for telling the truth about my too-short time in Brussels, and what I didn't acquire there. I'm quite sure that Aris understands.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-01-23 5:47:07 PM  

#68  So, lex, do you now also see the folly in opposing our dear Aris, or do you need more field guidance?
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:45:12 PM  

#67  By Jove, badanov finally gets it! It's all a game to dear Aris.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:43:07 PM  

#66  So when the almost-inevitable military strikes are made against Iranian nuclear facilities, you think they will be justified by the protagnoists as being for what purpose, exactly?

Play at the futures, Bulldog. Since I don't believe such strikes will happen by either USA or Europe, the question is moot.

The rest of your post is babble.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 5:42:26 PM  

#65  " I think it was a morally justified war, in the sense that any war is justified when it overthrows a brutal dictator in favour of democracy.

So your statement earlier in this thread that the war in Iraq was a failure was in fact a lie then. And you are repudiating something you said in the same thread you are saying it.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 5:41:30 PM  

#64  Oh please, Enlightening Beacon, provide us a list of preferred dictators for overthrow in the region. In order, please. Your field guidance is most needed, for badanov and lex are apparently not thinking clearly.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:40:36 PM  

#63  The Iraqi WMD hand was an utter failure in the eyes of the public, because none were found. As such the WMD is not a rhetoric that anyone will care to repeat.

So when the almost-inevitable military strikes are made against Iranian nuclear facilities, you think they will be justified by the protagnoists as being for what purpose, exactly? Every man and his dog (Greek public aside, perhaps) knows that Iran is developing nuclear technology. It's not just every major intelligence service (as was the case with Iraq). Only a handful of idiots and mullah apologists don't disagree that Iran's intentions are to use that technology for military purposes. Do you occasionally pause to think things through? Or do you think, egocentrically, that White House and Number 10 spin is designed for the benefit of apparently blissfully ignorant Greek audiences?
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-01-23 5:39:27 PM  

#62  My last comment "Sure", was in response to badanov's question.

"So you agree that the war in Iraq is a just war, that inasmuch as there may have been WMDs or not, the Iraq war is the right war for the right reasons. "

I think it was a morally justified war, in the sense that any war is justified when it overthrows a brutal dictator in favour of democracy.

But no, from a practical perspective it *wasn't* the right war for the right reasons at *all*. There were several other dictators in the region, whose overthrow would have been more beneficial to the region, and much more harmful to global terrorism. And I believe that USA politicians would have understood that, were it not for the fact that "leftover of Gulf War I" and delusions of military omnipotence, was clouding their brains.

The overthrow of Saddam is equivalent to invading Spain to overthrow Franco in World War II, instead of invading Normandy.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 5:36:30 PM  

#61  I will agree that emphasizing WMD vs Saddam was a colossal political mistake that has reduced our leverage re the mullahs' drive for nukes. But the fact of the matter is that it was Blair and Powell and the arabists at State who argued for this disastrous political message, not the advocates of democracy such as Wolfowitz.

Powell is on his way out the door. Wolfowitz is still in his job. Bush's inaugural address showed very clearly which side he's on this time. There will be no more f***-ups designed to appease the foolish "realism" of State's arabists and Tony Blair.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 5:36:15 PM  

#60  It's all a game to dear Aris.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:34:07 PM  

#59  The problem is that they were the chief card in the rhetorics/propaganda game.

Is war a game to you, Aris?
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 5:31:30 PM  

#58  No, I don't prefer to see any attack by Iran whatsoever, whether CBR, Nuclear or conventional. I've consistently *supported* the overthrow of the mullahs of Iran.

So you agree that the war in Iraq is a just war, that inasmuch as there may have been WMDs or not, the Iraq war is the right war for the right reasons.

I say this because you did state that you would rather a CBR attack not take place before action is taken, that you approve of preemptive wars.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 5:30:37 PM  

#57  Sure.

The problem is that they were the chief card in the rhetorics/propaganda game.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 5:30:21 PM  

#56  "To me and I daresay many, many Rantburgers, Iraq was unfinished business leftover from 1991, a ending long, long overdue. "

Yes, that's exactly what I believe it was also -- not something actually connected to the "War of Terror", but just an unfinished business leftover from 1991.

Not true. Neither W nor Cheney nor anyone in Bush's war cabinet, with the exception of Wolfowitz, had any desire to overthrow Saddam prior to 911. In fact Cheney and W clearly and repeatedly stressed their aversion to interventionist foreign policies throughout the 2000 election campaign.

Wolfowitz is the only senior Bush admin official who supported regime change prior to 911, due to both a longstanding realist hostility to Iraq's aggressive and destabilizing influence in the region (Wolfowtiz wrote his PhD thesis on this back in the 1960s) and to what his associates will describe as his deep personal anguish over Bush Sr's abandonment of the Kurds and the Marsh arabs in 1991.

Obviously, Bush's calculus changed significantly after 911. Wolfowitz had long pointed out the risks of leaving Saddam in power; the experience of 911 magnified these risks and strengthened Wolfowitz's hand and tipped Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other realpolitikers over to his side.

As to the justification for the war, of course the admin played up, foolishly IMHO, the WMD angle, but this was never Wolfowitz's preference, and I doubt it was Rumsfeld's or Cheney's, either. It was most likely State, ie the pro-EU, pro-UN faction, that played this up rather than stressing regime change and democracy in Iraq, as Wolfowitz would have preferred. In particular it was Colin Powell (and Tony Blair) who foolishly and disastrously convinced W to push for a completely unnecessary second UNSC resolution, in furtherance of which Powell prepared his infamous WMD presentation.

Had the case been made very simply that the US will not tolerate breaches of UN resolutions by nations that have used WMD against their own people and that have sponsored terrorists who seek to attack the US and its allies, then we could have gone to war far earlier and had, I believe, much more support from friends of democracy here and abroad. Perhaps not a majority in southern Europe or France, but definitely in Britain and perhaps Germany as well.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 5:29:44 PM  

#55  Thank you, thank you, thank you dear Aris! I sincerely hope that neither Iran's nor the Great Satan's ICBMs fall short and obliterate you there in the cradle of democracy. For surely the clash that appears inevitable for numerous reasons since the American hostages were taken in Teheran over 25 years ago will violate somebody's air space, and it could be yours. But take heart whatever happens, dear Aris, for surely you are the enlightened one and your field guidance here at Rantburg can avert a catastrophe for Europe and Iran. Please, dear Aris, give us more field guidance and we will strive to understand your wisdom and implement your wishes.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:29:29 PM  

#54  Then you must agree that WMDs were not the sole cause for war, right?
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 5:27:48 PM  

#53  Do you prefer to see a CBR attack before any action is taken?

No, I don't prefer to see any attack by Iran whatsoever, whether CBR, Nuclear or conventional. I've consistently *supported* the overthrow of the mullahs of Iran.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 5:27:35 PM  

#52  Did you not state in this thread that WMDs were the sole cause for war?

No, to my knowledge I've never stated that, neither in this thread nor anywhere else.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 5:24:37 PM  

#51  badanov> "Let me take a guess. You would prefer to see a CBR attack before any action is taken. " What I would have *preferred* would have been action to have been taken against the "networked" actual chief supporters of terrorism, Iran and Syria, instead of having all the hawks waste all their military and political capital on the isolated petty "leftover-from-Gulf-War" thug Saddam Hussein.

Answer my question. It is a simple yes or no answer. Do not qualify it, do not attempt to add to it. Do you prefer to see a CBR attack before any action is taken?
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 5:23:55 PM  

#50  sometimes I pay attention to a dump, sometimes I just wipe and go on - extrapolate to your own posts, TY
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 5:22:15 PM  

#49  Give them to me -- added info is always good to have. However the point is moot: WMDs were the firstmost reason used to propagandize the necessity the war, and it proved bogus.

You argument is this: Oh, so you have proof? It doesn't matter because I am right and you are wrong.

Did you not state in this thread that WMDs were the sole cause for war? If you stated this position and it has proved to be wrong, doesn't that negate your argument of WMDs being the sole cause for war? And if your argument is negated doesn't that mean you are wrong and are in fact, subsequent to being shown to be wrong, lying to further or maintain your position? Explain to me this logic.
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 5:20:35 PM  

#48  lex> Sorry for confusing you with tex.

Frank> Dude, look back at the "ignore" of #33.

badanov> "Let me take a guess. You would prefer to see a CBR attack before any action is taken. "

What I would have *preferred* would have been action to have been taken against the "networked" actual chief supporters of terrorism, Iran and Syria, instead of having all the hawks waste all their military and political capital on the isolated petty "leftover-from-Gulf-War" thug Saddam Hussein.

"If not, then why this remark?"

Because I know the difference between my preferences and reality. Nobody's going to take military action against Iran, with the possible exception of Israel, REGARDLESS of what I'd "prefer".

This is my estimation of *reality*, not a declaration of my "preferences", which I've made clear a long time ago.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 5:20:13 PM  

#47  thhank you for speaking for the American public opinion, Aris, the only opinion that will matter
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 5:18:09 PM  

#46  The Iraqi WMD hand was an utter failure in the eyes of the public, because none were found.
As such the WMD is not a rhetoric that anyone will care to repeat.

"To me and I daresay many, many Rantburgers, Iraq was unfinished business leftover from 1991, a ending long, long overdue. "

Yes, that's exactly what I believe it was also -- not something actually connected to the "War of Terror", but just an unfinished business leftover from 1991.

Unfortunately you fail to understand how such an argument is *horrible* for the supporters of the so-called necessity of the Iraq War.

Yes, millions of people worldwide believe it was leftover business from "Gulf War I". From my experience, such people tended to have *opposed* the war of Iraq.

"Unless my geography is off Greece is directly in the line of fire of ICBMs Iran could build, or already have built. You are not threatened? For real?"

You want to try to convince the Greek people that they are threatened by Iranian Nukes? Good luck -- it will be a miserable failure.

"The Resolution that gave Bush his war powers mentioned WMDs but not just as the sole raison d'guerre. You want links? Ask for them and I will show you. "

Give them to me -- added info is always good to have. However the point is moot: WMDs were the firstmost reason used to propagandize the necessity the war, and it proved bogus. WMD are the reason that's stuck in everyone's minds.

Since we're talking about politicians convincing their populations of the necessity of a second WMD war when the first one proved unnecessary WMD-wise, my argument remains such, no matter how many other "reasons" for the war there were -- including as you said finishing with the unfinished business of Gulf War I.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 5:14:03 PM  

#45  One more little "Brussels" joke, tw, and it will be off-to-the-camps with you too. We must not offend dear Aris. He is the enlightening beacon that these threads warrant. Please, dear Aris, more field guidance.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:13:36 PM  

#44  yucks aside, the fact is that no one knows what the f*** to do about the mullahs. We have nothing but shitty options, and time is working against us. As are the Europeans. All we can do is trust W's poker skills.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 5:13:03 PM  

#43  ok y'all...having sarcastic fun at Aris's expense? Why wasn't I told?..... LOL
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 5:12:54 PM  

#42  No, we must heed the field guidance of dear Aris. Mind your tongues, or it will be off-to-the-camps with you.

As long as it's a Dude Ranch. ;o)
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 5:10:58 PM  

#41  Badanov and lex, please do not chastise our dear Aris. Without his guidance, we may miss out on minor power plants, chicken and catfish farms, and other amenities. Do we want to risk being surpassed by the likes of North Korea? No, we must heed the field guidance of dear Aris. Mind your tongues, or it will be off-to-the-camps with you.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 5:07:16 PM  

#40  I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment as you already know, Tom, but the statement itself is just stunning! And Aris's response brings a single tear of joy to my eye, which I shall delicately dab away with a tissue ;-) (Unfortunately, I neglected to acquire an appropriate supply of lace-edged hankies while living in Brussels. My apologies to all for my oversight.)
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-01-23 5:03:51 PM  

#39  Aris, That was tex, not lex. I have no problem with you, Aris, when you add fact-based arguments concerning the topic under discussion.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 5:01:07 PM  

#38  WMDs were a card that the West could only play once.

If Iraqi WMDs were a poker game then Saddam was bluffing and Bush called his hand. To me and I daresay many, many Rantburgers, Iraq was unfinished business leftover from 1991, a ending long, long overdue. That WMDs were there were a good 'card to play' becuase every itel agency on earth said were still there.

With the Iraqi hand a total failure,

Kill ratios in favor of the Coalition in the quadruple digits, and Iraq is a failure?? Elections less than a week away and Iraq is a failure?? A functioning civilian government and a growing market economy and Iraq is a failure??

nobody not directly threatened (e.g. Israel)

Unless my geography is off Greece is directly in the line of fire of ICBMs Iran could build, or already have built. You are not threatened? For real?

is gonna care to commit forces to war simply because of WMDs *again*.

That is a lie carried forth by Sen Barbara Boxer when she railed against Dr. Rice: Iraq is a total failure and the only reason the Coalition went to war was WMDs. The Resolution that gave Bush his war powers mentioned WMDs but not just as the sole raison d'guerre. You want links? Ask for them and I will show you.

You lied, Aris. Now, apologize.

Not UK, not so-called "New Europe", and not even the United States.

You suck at poker Aris. You've already lost this hand.

Not unless a WMD attack actually occurs. Then you may get to revitalize interest in the subject.

Let me take a guess. You would prefer to see a CBR attack before any action is taken. If not, then why this remark?
Posted by: badanov   2005-01-23 4:59:34 PM  

#37  And once again, you are most welcome.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 4:57:41 PM  

#36  Again, Aris, thank you for the field guidance. Your boundless energy makes this a special place, dear Aris.
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 4:48:57 PM  

#35  You are most welcome.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 4:47:07 PM  

#34  Go, Aris! You are really making your points! I'm sure I speak for OldSpook and the rest of us here at Rantburg in saying that you are the enlightening beacon that these threads warranted. Thanks for coming back and making everything clear for us. You da man!
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-23 4:44:03 PM  

#33  back to *ignore* until soporifics and strawmen are passe
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 4:43:46 PM  

#32  OldSpook> "He is a proven liar and bigot, per his posts here earlier."

OldSpook is still upset that I've once called religious commandments against contraception to have been the result of powermad individuals that want to outpopulate the competition.

Oldspook has an interesting definition of "lie and bigotry", defined as "everyone who insults my religion, claiming it the product of powermad people rather than god-made".

Hiya, Oldspook. Why don't you link to the thread that so-called "proved" my lies and bigotry, to let everyone else decide by themselves who's the liar here?

lex> If Aris had any he would know.

Refer back to #7.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 4:34:17 PM  

#31  lex, good point, but her makeover is skin deep. Most anti-hildabeast already know the Clinton's chameleon powers
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 4:11:41 PM  

#30  Hillary's been very busy since 911 doing the political equivalent of a dozen botox injections. She supported the war, started saying sensible things about the military and generally has shown herself to be a very useful counter to the Deaniac idiotarians in her party.

If she were to diligently court white southern urban and suburban families over the next three years, she might well stand a chance as a JFK-Truman-style hawkish lib for president in 2008. A long shot, sure, but she should be watched carefully.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 3:54:27 PM  

#29  Frank, interesting observation about Cherie. I think the same is true of the Clintons. Hillary's ability to put that over on the Large NY Jewish constituency is impressive evidence of her political acumen.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-01-23 2:47:37 PM  

#28  ask Cheri Blair how much she'd weep if Israel was nuked. I bet tears would fall for the dead Israeli arabs and....that's it
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 1:03:09 PM  

#27  RWV wisper Israel in a European's ear, and see how much testesterone he got.
Posted by: gromgorru   2005-01-23 12:44:30 PM  

#26  ATTENTION:The ME in posts 21 and 23 is a faux me.I am the original Me.
Posted by: Me   2005-01-23 12:41:09 PM  

#25  "Then you may get to revitalize interest in the subject."

No, the tens or hundreds of thousands of dead and dying would probably do that.
Posted by: Mark E.   2005-01-23 11:51:16 AM  

#24  " No, but am not surprised there's more balls references involved. What's with the testicular obsession? "

Need not be explained. If Aris had any he would know.
Posted by: tex   2005-01-23 11:51:05 AM  

#23  Looooooooooook at ME! Looooooook at ME!
Posted by: ME   2005-01-23 11:44:30 AM  

#22  Why pay attention to Aris? He is a proven liar and bigot, per his posts here earlier.
Posted by: OldSpook   2005-01-23 11:41:10 AM  

#21  Pay attention to MEEEEEE!
Posted by: ME   2005-01-23 11:17:58 AM  

#20  Ya ever heard the expresion"Nuttless Wonder",Aris?

No, but am not surprised there's more balls references involved. What's with the testicular obsession?

Without the threat of force, how are the EU3 going to convince Iran to give-up the bomb?

Never said they are. In this respect TGA was much more optimistic than I.

WMDs were a card that the West could only play once. With the Iraqi hand a total failure, nobody not directly threatened (e.g. Israel) is gonna care to commit forces to war simply because of WMDs *again*. Not UK, not so-called "New Europe", and not even the United States.

Not unless a WMD attack actually occurs. Then you may get to revitalize interest in the subject.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 10:44:23 AM  

#19  Where's Blair?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-01-23 8:41:20 AM  

#18  "The document ... refers to 'safeguarding Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology'."

There's the elephant in the room. Iran has no legitimate reason to be investing so much in pursuing a nuclear programme for non-military purposes. To pretend that they do is deceit. Everyone acknowledges this, even the BBC! Blair and Straw really must think the British public are a bunch of idiots.

The reason Blair's acting like this? The (probable) May General Election. It's possible he's just stalling for time rather than permanently gone soft. Interstingly, I haven't heard the Tories calling Blair's bluff over Iran. Maybe they will, or maybe they'll be thinking exactly the same as Blair: now is not a good time to be getting into another conflict in the ME.
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-01-23 6:33:16 AM  

#17  Ya ever heard the expresion"Nuttless Wonder",Aris?
Without the threat of force,how are the EU3 going to convince Iran to give-up the bomb?
Are they going to use harsh words and spit balls?
How about hugs and kissies?
Posted by: Raptor   2005-01-23 6:27:46 AM  

#16  I see Straw wants to follow in the footsteps of his betters and promise the British "Blood, Sweat and Tears".
Only this time I am afraid it will be radioactive tears.
Posted by: EoZ   2005-01-23 5:08:55 AM  

#15  Does an Iranian 20 inch diameter ball of weapons- grade Uranium weight more or less than Straw's 200 page British "dossier" ??

Natanz Delenda Est
Posted by: EoZ   2005-01-23 5:02:49 AM  

#14  Straw man and Europe are appeasing Iran all the way on this as are. I mean the mullahs since these 'negotiations' have been going on have flipped on thier position more then John Kerry ever did, we want nukes its our right, we won't get them, we will get them rah rah rah. It has been clear for even me too see that the Mullahs are fast on thier way to an A-bomb , be it sht type or hydrogen bomb there determined to get it and its so fcking crystal clear! , argghhhhh i just hope America and others with the guts stop them, count us Euro's out we'd much rather appease, sorry :(
Posted by: Shep UK   2005-01-23 4:45:44 AM  

#13  The foreign secretary has produced a 200-page dossier that rules out military action and makes the case for a “negotiated solution” to curbing the ayatollahs’ nuclear ambitions amid increasingly bellicose noises from Washington.

Apparently, Mr. Straw doesn't seem to understand that the reason that bellicose noises from Washington would be increasing is because negotiations already underway haven't borne any fruit. Iran's mullahs want The Bomb, and they're not likely to negotiate their capabilities away.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-01-23 4:32:20 AM  

#12  Straw reminds me of this famous image Peace in our time.
We all know how well that worked out.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2005-01-23 2:59:45 AM  

#11  Indeed, Dishman. It's Germany and France that are desperate for export contracts, not the mullahs. With each tick upward of the euro, another tenth of a percent is knocked off of German GDP growth projections, which were anemic to begin with. The bribery in these "negotiations" is bribery of the EU by Iran, not v-v.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 2:29:23 AM  

#10  By taking use of force off the table, the Euros are giving up one of their strongest negotiating positions. Back to Munich!

On the other hand, maybe that's not their game at all. Maybe it's about getting business for friends at the expense of EU taxpayers.
Posted by: Dishman   2005-01-23 2:07:51 AM  

#9  nice try MS and Aris. Straw's on teh wrong side of this argument and while we appreciate their help elsewhere, their defense of Israel's presence leave's the US as the only arbitrator of OUR position. We'll do as we see fit and deal with the consequences
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 12:49:52 AM  

#8  Brevity's the soul of wit. Try again, A.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 12:46:05 AM  

#7  It's a telling comment on EUropean masculinity when Condoleeza Rice has more testosterone than all her EUropean counterparts put together.

A friend of mine would say that it's a telling comment on Conservatives' gender politics, when they feel the need to attribute balls to women they admire, and deny them from all men that they dislike.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-23 12:45:11 AM  

#6  
The UK certainly has earned our respectful attention to its opinion about this matter. Most people would think so. Maybe, though, the Brits are just fools who lack masculinity, and we should stick their opinions up their butts.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-01-23 12:31:57 AM  

#5  Britain's "special" relationship with Iran makes them a non-entity when the adults have to take care of Iran. Condi knows this
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-23 12:31:39 AM  

#4  safeguarding Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology”.

No problem with that, so long as it's a truly democratic, mullah-free Iran that's in possession of such technology.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 12:30:56 AM  

#3  Jujitsu time: we should say we have no we have no problem with a nuclear Iran, provided that such an Iran be governed by the people, not fascistic bloodthirsty mullahs determined to obliterate Israel and to strangle Iraqi democracy. In other words, come at this from a completely different angle: bypass the govenrment and the asinine EU3 farce of negotiations with said government, and signal a true win-win for the Iraqis: they can have nukes, provided they overthrow the mullahs and reject jihad.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-23 12:23:23 AM  

#2  It's a telling comment on EUropean masculinity when Condoleeza Rice has more testosterone than all her EUropean counterparts put together. Hope she finds her way to elective office in four years.
Posted by: RWV   2005-01-23 12:20:43 AM  

#1  I hope Condi tells Jack where he can stick his "200-page dossier." Diplomatically, of course...
Posted by: PBMcL   2005-01-23 12:12:15 AM  

00:00